Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Turkish literature

Turkish literature
Self-nomination. I have been working on this article for about a month. I have submitted it to peer review—where I received several suggestions, all of which I implemented—and have also got it accepted as a good article. I believe that it is in a fit state to be accepted as a featured article, and that it would be a good addition to the featured articles on literature (especially insofar as there is a relative paucity in that section of non-English literatures). I am aware that the article is long; however, I think that this is to be expected in any respectable treatment of an entire national literature (though I am willing to accept suggestions as to what might be trimmed down). Moreover, as per the Wikipedia featured article guideline stating that an article "should use summary style to cover sub-topics that are treated in greater detail in any 'daughter' articles", there are as of yet no "daughter" articles treating the relevant topics in detail (a problem I hope to remedy at some time in the future), and so I believe that—at the present at least—the article's length may be further merited on those grounds. —Saposcat 07:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * support The article is very comprehensive, with proper in-line citations and multiple references that are academic works instead of webpages. Proper links are implemented for those of us who want to read more about particular sub-topic. Temporary account 18:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: It irks me a bit that the infobox would not be at the top, especially as there is more than enough vertical space to have both the box and the image. Is there any particular reason it's down in the first section? Circeus 22:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply to Comment. I suppose there's three reasons it's not there. First: the associated articles are still skeletally thin on anything worthwhile, and so I'm hesitant to highlight the infobox when it doesn't (for the nonce) lead much of anywhere. Second: the infobox, to a certain extent, highlights the division between folk and written literature that is being talked about in the "two traditions" section. Third: I think that—just as it irks you to not have the infobox at the top—it would irk me to have an image and an infobox so closely together; I'm not a big fan, aesthetically speaking, of vertically stacking. If others agree with you, though, and insist that the infobox is best moved elsewhere, I would have no real qualms about doing do. —Saposcat 05:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply to Reply to Comment. On second thought, I tried it and liked it—and so have changed it. Apologies for my long-winded pigheadedness, and thanks for the suggestion. —Saposcat 10:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. It's awesome to have such a well-written article on a topic like this, the annals of Wiki's FAs are seriously lacking in literary topics. RyanG e rbil10 00:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * support per RyanGerbil10.--Bcrowell 07:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. The article is well organized, but the prose is far from "compelling". P.S. Mayakovsky never wrote "free verse". --Ghirla -трёп- 09:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply. As per Mayakovsky, I must admit I was somewhat fooled by his quote, "Trochees and iambs have never been necessary to me. I don't know them and don't want to know them. Iambs impede the forward movement of poetry" (found here), but just now I've checked here and found: "Mayakovsky's verse may strike a reader as free of the conventional restraints of meter and rhyme, yet close analysis of his lines reveals a carefully structured and complex poetic artifice concealed but not destroyed by the breakup of the line into conversational phrase patterns." As this latter site is specifically devoted to 20th-century Russian poetry, I assume it's rather more reliable; i.e., you're right, and I have altered the sentence about Mayakovsky's influence on Nâzım Hikmet accordingly. Thanks for pointing it out. P.S. I'm sorry that you were "far from" compelled by the prose (ah well, so it goes). Any specific complaints or points in regards to that? —Saposcat 10:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Nicely done and sourced artile on turkish literature. Wikipedia needs more comprehensive articles about national literature like this one. Blue  Shirts  18:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * object i peer reviewed this article. its good but:
 * headings should never have pics directly below them. so pic of nasreddin hoca should not be directly below heading - move it to right
 * ths will make it stack under kaygusuz abdal so move kaygusuz pic somewhere else
 * ottoman garden party pic - move to right
 * still dont like title "Early modern turkish literature" (as per PR) - change it to "early 20th century turkish literature" or something
 * move pic of tefvik kifret to right
 * pics dont have fair use rationales (esp. memed my hawk) Zzzzz 17:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply to object. All suggested changes have been made, including a fair use rationale for the "Memed, My Hawk" picture (no other pictures used were claimed as fair use). However, I am highly doubtful of the claim that "headings should never have pics directly below them", as a quick look reveals that such a situation is present in at least three current featured articles from the literature section alone: Augustan literature, Irish poetry, and the Voynich manuscript. I do not doubt that a more thorough search of other featured articles would reveal similar instances. —Saposcat 20:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * layout is good now. just 2 comments: the Folklore heading is now not left-justified. is it possible to do something about that? and i dont like the turkish lit infobox stacked below the picture, would prefer it further down. Zzzzz 20:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the reason the box is in its current location is because I complained the exact opposite. Such templates are designed specifically with the intent to be in the article lead, as far as I'm concerned. Circeus 21:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply. I have fixed the Folklore heading's non-left justification (I can't be sure if it is fixed in all possible browser/skin combinations, however). As for the infobox, so as to avoid a vicious and eternal circle of trying to satisfy everyone by moving it up, then down, then up, then down, I'm just going to leave it where it is right now. There is some reasoning for its being located further down (see my stricken reply to Circeus above), but I think that Circeus' argument about the infobox being in the lead is more normative across Wikipedia. —Saposcat 06:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Comprehensive and well written. deeptrivia (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I suggest removing the self-refrencing, "This article will concern itself" in the third paragraph. Your prose seems so organized I don't want to touch it. :-) Wonderful article. --Banana04131 19:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply to Support. Self-referencing has been removed. Thanks for pointing it out, and for the vote of support and the compliments. —Saposcat 07:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Rama&#39;s Arrow 03:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Looks good overall. However, I have a minor objection in the article talking about itself in the third paragraph of the lead. If you want to define the scope, please do so as done in Indian Railways. Will support once I read the article completely and if I don't have any objections. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply to Comment. Self-referencing has been removed. Originally it had been put there partly to hedge my bets against the nationalist sentiments that sometimes tend to disrupt Turkey-related articles; but hedging one's bets is, of course, not appropriate for a potential featured article, so I'm not hedging them any longer. Thanks for pointing the problems with the lead out. —Saposcat 07:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)